"Lawrence Dillard" wrote in message
...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

It is a matter of
record that GWB was assigned to ARF (ARPC, Denver, Co) (October,
1972),
where Guard members are sent, for (as I stated in my earlier post)
among
other things, disciplinary reasons.

SNIP
This is the most astonishing of the allegations on the anti-Bush
websites. Bush was never *sent* to Denver for disciplinary or any
other reason. He was reassigned to this inactive reserve unit to fill
the rest of his six-year obligation (with an additional six months
tacked on) because he was no longer available to attend meetings of
the Texas Air Guard.

Agreed, to a certain extent; I could have expressed myself somewhat more
clearly. GWB was *assigned* to ARF/ARPC in Oct. of 1972. ARF is the
location where Guard Members' *records* are sent for among other things,
disciplinary reasons. (My mistake, I was typing too quickly. I certainly
don't run an anti-GWB website, and had no intent to astonish anyone.) To
reiterate, "discipline" need not necessarily mean either brig time nor any
type of *physical restraint*. Apparently, there are some on this NG who do
understand that, for example,*probation* is a form of discipline (custody)
which does not involve restraint or incarceration. A JAG or Army
equivalent
could explain.

ARF/ARPC Denver is where records for people placed on inactive reserve are
sent. This also then becomes thier controlling personnel center. i.e. "Who
do I get in touch with for my personnel issues?"
The fact that that facility also has a detention/punishment/confinement
function has nothing to do with *this* particular servicemenber.

Every major base I've ever been on has some sort of detention facility.
For instance...USAF members are *assigned* to Langley AFB for, among other
reasons, disciplinary reasons. Does that mean every person at Langley has
been sent there for disciplinary reasons? Not a chance.

Carefully misleading wording and innuendo can create an illusion of
wrongdoing. Is there any paperwork showing any actual disciplinary action?
Art. 15, Court Martial, etc? If so, it would have come out long before now.

His DD-214 equivalent clearly shows an Honorable Discharge.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif
TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable
REASON AND AUTHORITY FOR DISCHARGE: Officer is transferred to to ARPC (ORS),
3800 York St, Denver Colorado. Effective 2 October, 1973

Key word there...DISCHARGE. If he had been *assigned* (as in his physical
body going there) to ARF/ARPC for your supposed disciplinary reason, he
would not have been *discharged* at that time.

Your "among other things" includes normal separation (and transfer to the
inactive reserve). Why the innuendo WRT the additional functions of
ARF/ARPC, Denver? Is there any paper or any person that can say GWB was
*assigned* to Denver for 'disciplinary reasons'?

No...didn't think so.


As I wrote in an earlier post, there is a discrepancy between the
separation dates for GWB as between ARF/ARPC and NG Bureau, which at one
time listed GWB's commitment as ending May 26, 1974; this date held reign
until about October, 1973, when GWB was transferred to the inactive
reserve.
Date of his separation per Denver is Nov 21,1974.

Original, planned separation date = May 1974
Early discharge in Oct 73 and transfer to the inactive reserve adds an
additional 6 months.
Oct 73 - May 74 = 6 months
6 month additional commitment in Inactive Reserve = Nov 74.

Simple

Pete
Again...TYPE OF DISCHARGE: Honorable